Specialist Advice and Litigation

We pride ourselves on our technical knowledge, striving to provide creative and innovation solutions, and to exhaustively consider all aspects of Immigration law when assisting our clients.

Our solicitors work with a number of complex areas often outside the norm, including maritime immigration law, posted workers and ‘van der elst’ visas, the illegal working penalty regime, foreign Doctor registration with the NHS under the Medical Act 1983, the right of abode and UK ancestry, and intra-country adoptions, to name a few.

We have been responsible for a number of important judgements that have brought tangible change to UK immigration law. We believe that these judgements provide perhaps the best evidence of our expertise and professionalism.

This judicial review challenged the Home Office’s restrictions placed upon certain visitors who wanted to undertake short recreational course. McGill and Co successfully challenged these restrictions which would have effectively destroyed many providers UK wide. The decision brought about a change in Home Office policy, with the new visitor rules under Appendix V permitting such courses in response to this challenge.

This appeal to the Upper Tribunal challenged the Home Office’s administration of payments for immigration applications, which was held to be unfair. It was an extremely important victory and resulted in specific amendment to the Home Office’s policy in this regard

This judicial review challenged British nationality law and the Home Office’s interpretation of provisions related to historical gender discrimination. The case established an important precedent which has potential application in a number of other cases.

In recognising that there was no reported decision in Scotland where a foreign adoption order had been recognised and registered at Common Law, Lord Brailsford granted decree at Common Law on 4th June .

Considering the leading English authorityG (Children) [2014] EWHC 2605 to the effect that the common law test is now threefold requiring the following questions to be answered, affirmatively in the case of the first two questions, negatively in the case of the third question, in order to permit recognition of a foreign adoption at common law:

“(i) Was the adoption obtained wholly lawfully in the foreign country? (ii) If so, did the concept of adoption in that jurisdiction substantially conform with the English concept? (iii) If so, was there any public policy consideration that should mitigate against recognition?”

The court subsequently approved the tripartite test recognising that it was sensible and in accordance with justice and brought the laws of Scotland and England together in conformity.